SSD + Traditional HDD and Windows Swap File

[izzy92020]

I have a quick question...

Normally this would be an easy question as I would be using 2 traditional HDDs... but as I getting ready to build a new machine... I'm not sure how I should plan this.

I would like to buy a SSD and use it as my C drive and use a regular SATA drive as my storage and swap file drive.

But since drive C will be a SSD... should I keep the swap file there?

or still set it up like would with the swap file on the D drive?

Thanks,
-Iz

 

[Muadib]

I kept my swap file on the SSD, but I also would like some input from others.

 

[corkyg]

I put my page file in a small partition of the main drive - it is called "D" but is on the same piece of hardware. That prevents the page file from pushing other things around and causing fragmentation. However, thst may not be a problem with a SSD using TRIM.

 

[blackangst1]

Mine is on my SSD. with plenty of memory you may not even hit swap. That said, alot of programs want swap, soooo. And as far as wear goes...one of two things wqill happen. 1. By the time the drive actually wears out, I probably wont want it anymore anyway due to new technology, or 2. By the time the drive actually wears out, I probably wont want it anymore anyway due to new technology. There really isnt a reason to not keep swap on the SSD.

 

[SunSamurai]

If you could afford an SSD, get more RAM and turn VM off. Ignore the snake-oil people telling you the world will explode if you turn VM off.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

VM = vitrual memory? as in Pagefile?

 

[corkyg]

If you have more than 4 GB of real RAM, a page file is almost not needed at all unless you are doing a lot of heavy duty video transcoding, etc. VM=Page File=Swap File

Having said that, I would not put the VM on my SSD - . . . if I wanted it (for emergency use only) I would put it on a different drive.

 

[zerocool84]

If you have more than 4 GB of real RAM, a page file is almost not needed at all unless you are doing a lot of heavy duty video transcoding, etc. VM=Page File=Swap File

Having said that, I would not put the VM on my SSD - . . . if I wanted it (for emergency use only) I would put it on a different drive.

but as we all know, there are some games and programs that need it and if you have enough RAM you probably won't even use it anyways so I have no idea why people turn it off

 

[corkyg]

but as we all know, there are some games and programs that need it and if you have enough RAM you probably won't even use it anyways so I have no idea why people turn it off

I haven't found one. I figure that some people turn it off because they don't need it, and it is a source of fragmentation.

My point is, since it is not normally needed by some users, then putting it on a different drive should not affect performance. In any case, I would set it to refresh on every reboot.

 

[Nothinman]

Except that it's not a source of fragmentation unless you make it way too small and force Windows to expand it. And the pagefile isn't the same thing as virtual memory, despite what the Windows dialogs say.

 

[blackangst1]

And fragmentation is irrelevant on an SSD

 

[Scotteq]

...and you shouldn't disable the page file on anything newer than XP, anyhow.

 

[corkyg]

And fragmentation is irrelevant on an SSD

Not completely. Free space fragmentation can slow down write speed on an SSd. Ergo, free space defragmentation of consolidation can improve the SSDs write speed.

 

[blackangst1]

Not completely. Free space fragmentation can slow down write speed on an SSd. Ergo, free space defragmentation of consolidation can improve the SSDs write speed.

Due to low access times, fragmentation is irrelevant; however, on non-trim supported devices, defragging will slow down the drive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive

Defragmenting the SSD is unnecessary. Since SSDs are random access by nature and can perform parallel reads on multiple sections of the drive (as opposed to a HDD, which requires seek time for each fragment, assuming a single head assembly), a certain degree of fragmentation is actually better for reads, and wear leveling intrinsically induces fragmentation. In fact, defragmenting a SSD is harmful since it adds wear to the SSD for no benefit.

 

[Chiropteran]

There really isnt a reason to not keep swap on the SSD.

Sure there is. Windows wants a swap file as big as your total RAM. With 8 or 12GB of RAM, and a 40GB SSD, you would potentially be wasting over a quarter of your capacity. Even if you go all out and get a larger SSD, 8GB is 8GB. I'd rather waste space on my multi TB hard disk drive than waste precious space on the SSD.

 

[Binky]

I keep my swap file(s) on the SSD. I bought the damned thing for speed. If windows ever decides to access my swap file, I want it to be as fast as possible.

If I were running low on space I might move the swap file to a mechanical drive or just make the swap file smaller. As it is, even a 30GB SSD can hold my own Windows installations with plenty of room to spare.

 

[blackangst1]

Sure there is. Windows wants a swap file as big as your total RAM. With 8 or 12GB of RAM, and a 40GB SSD, you would potentially be wasting over a quarter of your capacity. Even if you go all out and get a larger SSD, 8GB is 8GB. I'd rather waste space on my multi TB hard disk drive than waste precious space on the SSD.

OK I should have qualified my statement. For most people, there isnt a reason to not keep swap on the SSD In your scenario, youre right. but most people are getting larger than 40 gig drives, and most people dont have more than 4 gigs memory.

 

[izzy92020]

Thanks for all of your input... I plan to place the pagefile on the SSD and since I plan to have 6gb ram... hopefully there wont be much use of it anyways... and if it is accessed, it will be fast.

 

[KIAman]

I left my pagefile on my SSD as well except I locked it down so it will never grow or shrink. I read an article a while back that the read to write ratio for the typical Windows 7 Pagefile is a 40 to 1 ratio. The benefits of reading that data of an SSD is enormous IMO.

You can lock down the size by having the same min/max size.

 

[Nothinman]

You can lock down the size by having the same min/max size.

Which will have 0 affect unless you make the min size way too small.

 

[MStele]

If you have over 6GB ram, I would just set a static 1024 or 2048 swap (for software compatibility) and just leave it at that. Unless your doing some heavy lifting via video/image editing, your not likely to saturate your ram for the forseable future. As for placement, just stick the swap file on your non-system drive.